Teacher education: Partnerships in pedagogy?

Teacher education: Partnerships in pedagogy?

Teaching & Teacher Education, Vol. 11, No. 6, pp. 595-610, 1995 Copyright © 1995 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved 07...

1MB Sizes 2 Downloads 46 Views

Teaching & Teacher Education, Vol. 11, No. 6, pp. 595-610, 1995 Copyright © 1995 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved 0742~)5 IX/95 $9.50+0.00






A N N E EDWARDS The UniversityCollege of St Martin, Lancaster, U.K. Abstraet--Initial training partnerships between schools and universities can appear to be driven by the demands of external accountability.Resultant managerial models of partnership support simplistic interpretations of application of subject knowledge:competence-basedassessments and reflectivepractice in initial teacher training. A consequent focus on "performativity"(Ball, 1994) seems to militate against an emphasis on how student teachers best learn. A Neo-Vygotskianmodel which incorporates understandings of teaching and learning is offeredas a possible frameworkfor initial trainingpartnership. Data collectedfroman earlyyearsteachingschool-universitypartnership programme illustrate discussion of the framework.The complexityof roles and responsibilitiesin training partnerships is emphasized.

Partnerships in the initial training of teachers are being presented to schools and Higher Education Institutions (HEI) in England and Wales as national policy to be enacted. Elsewhere, for example, in parts of the U.S.A., training partnerships are encouraged as models for the development of the teaching profession (Goodlad, 1991). The English and Welsh initial training situation highlights quite starkly the tension that currently exists between Government policy directives and the development of practice. Consequently, as Ball (1994) confirms, it is impossible to discuss educational practices in the U.K. without foregrounding the policy-driven context. At the same time recent, often quite dramatic, policy swings have encouraged educators to undertake considered examination of what is central to these practices. Consequently, a "zigzag" (Rapport, 1994) between policy and practice in initial teacher training is traced to demonstrate the interpenetration of central directives and possibilities for practice. But the core of the paper is an examination of how all partners in the training process might enable student teachers as they

too "zigzag" between a wider research-based and public discourse and the more private classroom contexts in which they develop as teachers. In the first sections of this paper the policy context is set out. This context frames a discussion of roles and responsibilities in initial training arrangements seeing in them the potential to be either largely managerial and focused on assessment of outcomes or "performativity" (Ball, 1994) or primarily pedagogical and focused on the interaction of curriculum, teaching, and learning processes (Bruner, 1966; Stones, 1992). The frame provides the setting for an examination of some of the current and key issues in U.K. teacher education. Pedagogical perspectives on these issues are integrated into a model of initial teacher training which has its origins in Neo-Vygotskian views of teaching and learning. Having established a framework for a discussion of what may be described as a pedagogically driven initial training programme the paper will conclude by "zigzagging" between the experiences of one cohort of students on a partnership-based degree programme and the mana-

I would like to thank David Webb for his helpful comments on this paper and Jill Collison for the collection of much of the data. All flaws are of my making.




gerial and pedagogical models of partnership offered earlier in the paper. The picture produced will allow an examination of the implications of both approaches to partnership in initial teacher training for student learning and for the place of theory in that learning.

Competing Definitions of Partnership The managerial discourse currently used to inform practice in Higher Education in England and Wales with its emphasis on academic audit and the assessment of quality has brought with it a notion of partnership in initial teacher training which trails in its wake post-fordist forms of accountability. Here we find emphases on performance and a bureaucratically defined understanding of how people become teachers in formal education settings. One consequence of a managerially oriented definition of partnership may be the undermining of the potential for partnerships to become pedagogically oriented educational collaborations in which trainers from whatever setting are able to work together to integrate the experiences of student teachers as they deal with the intricate interplay of curriculum, and teaching and learning processes. Research on Professional Development Schools in the U.S.A. (Stallings & Kowalski, 1990) has already indicated that educational partnerships are not easily achieved. An examination of one set of government produced criteria for training partnerships illustrates the claim that a managerial discourse exists. The guidelines (CATE, 1992) produced for England and Wales by the national Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education for school-based training and the partnerships of HEI) and secondary schools allocate discrete responsibilities in a way that may be seen to be typical of the post-fordist managerial approach of central governments. Such an approach depends upon clear responsibilities against which outcomes may be assessed and accountability be maintained (Ball, 1994). These guidelines state that school-based teacher training is not just extended teaching practice, but that schools catering for children over the age of 11 will take responsibility for the training of students in the following areas: 1. Training students to teach their specialist subject.

2. Developing an understanding of how pupils learn. 3. Training students to manage classes and assess pupils. 4. Supervising students in relation to the school-based elements of the course. 5. Assessing student competencies in subject application and classroom skills. Higher Education responsibility will be: 1. Teaching subject studies in undergraduate courses and where required in postgraduate courses. 2. Ensuring validation and accreditation requirements are met. 3. Ensuring that students are assessed for the award of qualifications. Other tasks which include programme design and quality control are considered to be the joint responsibility of schools and HEI. The latest Government-produced criteria for the initial training of primary school teachers in England and Wales (DFE, 1993) recognise that training in the age 4-11 sector cannot be simplified to the extent that has been attempted in the secondary sector. Consequently, discrete responsibilities for each partner have not been prescribed at the same level of detail but partnerships of some description are the bottom line. In addition, there is the intention that some schools may take the lead in designing and running their own courses through an alternative model of what is termed school-centred training. In the context of the plans outlined for the training of primary school teachers in England and Wales partnership appears a weasel word. The lack of clarity over roles and responsibilities is unlikely to mean that responsibilities will not be defined. Definitions will be required for both financial and quality audit purposes if for no other reasons. An indication of how these responsibilities are expected to be divided is seen in the distinction made between the role of the schools "which are best placed to help student teachers develop and apply practical teaching skills" (DFE, 1993) and in the HEI role which is to provide "the subject knowledge necessary for sound teaching of the primary curriculum". Somewhere in the gap between these dual, if hopefully parallel, functions lies pedagogy.

Teacher Education: Partnerships in Pedagogy? The lack of emphasis may in part be due to uncertainity about what is meant by pedagogy. In this paper it is taken to mean more than "those broad principles and strategies of classroom management that appear to transcend subject matter" (Shulman, 1987). The definition lies closer to that used by Stones (1992) when he, like Bruner, pulls together theories of learning, teaching, and knowledge (Bruner, 1966) to see a shifting relationship between subject-related learning goals, learning processes, and teacher actions which is tied together by a recognition of the importance of language to the acquisition of knowledge and associated skills. This interplay of curricular goals and teaching and learning processes is complex and contingent upon diagnoses of learner need. Partnerships, if they are to accommodate such an understanding of pedagogy and use it to support students' own learning, may need to have quite complex role distinctions as their base. It may therefore be timely to attempt to define a school-HEI partnership that is driven by understandings taken from the pedagogic discourse used in the field of teaching and learning. This call is not new; for example, it resonates through Bennett and Carr6's (1993) account of the preparation of primary school teachers in a U.K. Uiversity. Partnership - - The Questions Begged

It may appear that an increase in schools' responsibilities for teacher training can be justified as the logical outcome of an emphasis on the interaction between theory and practice in the development of teachers' knowledge (Furlong, Hirst, Pocklington, & Miles, 1988). According to this view educational theory can be incorporated into teachers' understandings only to the extent that it can be validated in practice. At the same time the needs of practice provide the grounding for the development of theory. An increased emphasis on the school as a training base would, if we pursue this argument, provide appropriate checks to overweaning and possibly irrelevant theory. Teachers' commonsense readings of the context and practice of teaching in consequence are elevated to the level of practical theory and it is this practical theory that, in the U.K. at least, central government would like to see at the forefront of teacher training. There appears, however, no awareness


of the work of researchers into the idiosyncracies of teachers' personal theories (e.g., Clandanin & Connelly, 1986) in the criteria that have been produced. In addition to appearing to take for granted that commonsense makes best sense, proponents of creating distinct roles for the different sites used in initial teacher training also beg what Carter (1990) has isolated as the fundamental issue when attempting to understand teacher training. The question, which she addresses in her review of research into the professional preparation of teachers, is "What do teachers know and how is that knowledge acquired?" From her review it appears that teachers' knowledge is, not unexpectedly, situationally, and experientially constrained, and that knowledge of teaching is most easily acquired when formal knowledge is translated into practical knowledge. It is clear that she does not advocate creating the framework of understanding of practice simply from an analysis of practice. "The learning-to-teach problem, therefore, is more one of translating knowledge from one form to another, from propositional to procedural, than of unravelling the meaning of complex procedures" (p. 306). Conversely, the strength of a largely schoolbased training in which school-based partners have considerable responsibility for student learning would appear to be premised on the wish to reproduce practical knowledge and to explain it by unravelling classroom experiences. By placing the balance of the pedagogic process of becoming a teacher so squarely in the schools, the schools, the U.K. criteria outlined appear to ignore the complete learning process of intending teachers and may indeed be creating 'time-consuming and ineffective unravelling tasks for the teachers who are supporting student teachers as they learn. Any understanding of the complete learning cycle of student teachers has to take into account what are commonly and currently held to be the key educational issues in that process. These will now be examined in order to discover how they might be incorporated into a coherent framework for student teacher learning. In the U.K. these issues include pedagogical knowledge in relation to subject knowledge, the assessment of competence, and the development of the a6ility to manage one's own professional development through reflection on practice.


Key Issues in Teacher Training

ANNE EDWARDS to be to help students both translate their own experiences into frames provided by public knowledge and to acquire the more powerful language frameworks offered by an understanding of that knowledge so that they become insiders in the professional discourse and able to articulate it and keep it as public and open to scrutiny rather than as tacit or private knowledge. It is being suggested that through their testing of the language and the concepts of, for example, pedagogy carried in the discourse student teachers are better placed to manage their own professional learning. An emphasis on the acquisition of publicly held knowledge which is itself shaped by both language and experience, demands a flexible and collaborative teaching partnership which places the management of dialogues between expert and novices as a central concern. Any simplifications of these complex processes are probably less than helpful.

Pedagogical knowledge. Current emphasis, evident in the U.K. at least, on an input-output view of the transmission of subject knowledge at both the primary and secondary phases of education have their consequences for teacher education. Student teacher subject knowledge and its application in classrooms is given priority in government documentation, while the processes by which both school pupils and the student teachers themselves learn are weighted less heavily (see, e.g., consultation documents emanating from the recently constituted English Teacher Training Agency). However, the very notion of application of subject knowledge needs to be questioned in the context of initial teacher training. A psychologist may apply knowledge of psychology in relating an understanding of children's thinking to the management of teacher time in classrooms. A historian may apply historical knowledge while examining government documents on teacher training. Neither subject Competences. Competences can quite easily is applied directly in curricular terms in the lend themselves to managerial usage in partnerclassroom. What is applied in classrooms is ships as responsibilities may be defined in terms subject-specific pedagogical knowledge which of lists of professional competences to be assessed has enabled teachers to understand how they independently in each training setting (Edwards might translate their conceptual frameworks to & Knight, 1995). The pedagogical ramifications meet the learning needs of pupils. These needs of an emphasis on the assessment of competences are diagnosed by teachers who draw on both are quite considerable. The end-loaded or pertheir understandings of children's thinking and formance perspective on learning essential to a motivation and a developmentally framed under- competency model (Jessup, 1991) de-emphasizes standing of those key concepts in a subject that the front-end or start-up element of the learning constitutes the curriculum. process. Nevertheless, a use of competences The over-simplification emanating from a which emphasizes their pedagogic purposes over simplistic notion of the application of subject their managerial usage has a long tradition. knowledge in classrooms may also have ramifiFront-loading but with clear ends in sight has cations for the education of intending teachers. been stressed by those professional pedagogues A recognition of the importance of a form of from Vygotsky onwards who have regarded pedagogical knowledge which ties together an education as the induction of novices by experts understanding of learning, teaching, and curricu- into culturally based understandings and skills. lum is not not new but is seen in the practice of Far from providing a simple transmission model teaching as the particular "province of teachers" of education the key has been the induction and (Shulman, 1987) or as tacit knowledge (Elbaz, empowerment of the learners. A front-loading 1990). Its role in teacher training is rarely made but goal-directed perspective on teaching and explicit either when describing the development learning has recognised expert knowledge and of student teachers or the development of their the function of the teacher as more expert in understandings of how to operate in classrooms. assisting the learning or performance of the The definition of pedagogy offered in this novice (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988; Wertsch, paper has language acquisition at its core. Con- 1985). It has acknowledged the existence of sequently, when applied to initial teacher train- domain-specific discourse in ways which resoning it regards the function of teacher educators ate with Bruner's attention to the integrity of

Teacher Education: Partnerships in Pedagogy?

Stag~ 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.


Creatin8 a preliminary conception ofthe action. Takin8 practical action steps. Talldn8 about the action and its implications. lntermdising the routine and potential implications of the actions. Consolidating and understanding through incorpontting ideas into prac6c~. Figure 1. Five stagesin learning.

the structures and meanings of subjects (Bruner, 1960); with Sch6n's emphasis on the development of the shared meaning essential to professional dialogues (SchiSn, 1987); and with Karmiloff-Smith's recent insights into domain specific knowledge (Karmiloff-Smith, 1992). At the same time it projectsa view of the education process as a process of operational empowerment within that discourse. Consequently, while the assessment of professional competence might appear to meet the need for what Ball (1994) describes as "performativity" it may do more than that and may be compatible with a form of pedagogy that gives weight to what is to be learnt and how that learning is supported. If such an interpretation of the purposes of the use of competences is made, an examination of the implications of the interpretation for collaborative training partnerships which support the acquisition of student teachers' professional knowledge is perhaps appropriate. A consesquence of an examination of the implications may be the need to call into question the simplicity of the managerial framework outlined earlier. A brief examination of the work of Gal'Perin (1970) illustrates the front-loading induction process just outlined and allows a recognition of the importance of acquiring the language of the subject or discipline as part of learning and the role of more expert instruction in the process. Gal'Perin identified a sequence of learning in which the learner moves through five stages, each of which is managed by the teacher. A simplified model of Gal'Perin's stages, adapted for use in teacher education for the acquisition of professional knowledge, was first used in Edwards and Brunton (1993) and is shown in Figure 1.

In a teacher education programme that follows this framework at stage 1 the concepts to be learned are introduced to the novice teacher, explored, and shared. At stage 2 a practical task is set and carried out. Stage 3 allows for discussion of the task and the connection of observations with ideas explored at stage one. Stages 4 and 5 see the fruits of deep learning as new understandings become routinized into the novice teacher's repertoire of practice in classroom performance. Student teachers may return to earlier stages to revisit and revise frameworks and experiences when necessary. The talk of teacher and learner (mentor and student teacher in this example), is a feature of Gal'Perin's stages. Control of the dialogue begins to shift from expert to novice at stages 1 and 2. At stage 3 there should be a balanced conversation between mentor and student teacher. At stages 4 and 5 the novice begins to use the language learnt in dialogue with the mentor as his or her own. Mastery of a new element of expert language marks the developing expertise of the novice. Deep, as opposed to surface, learning occurs as a result of the opportunity to take practical action steps and to discuss them and their implications. The novice appears to move through a cycle in which he or sheis introduced to ideas commonly and publicly shared in the expert discourse. He or she is then given the opportunity to act on them, apply them in practice, and internalize understanding through operations which are, in Piagetian terms, both concrete and abstract, before finally engaging competently in thought and action with the publicly accepted way of operating. To start at stage 2 without the experience of framing and highlighting provided by stage 1 would, within this framework be a mistake.



The aspects of Gal'Perin's work just outlined demonstrate how a view of learning as the acquisition of understanding through carefully paced dialogic interactions can provide a base into which can be incorporated frameworks for teaching and equally paced goal-setting around curriculum tasks. Teaching and learning can, in his framework be perceived as a joint enterprise in which the teacher or mentor has a role not as transmitter but as contingent supporter of the learning of the less expert, in this case a student teacher. The support is managed through the selection of tasks designed to promote particular forms of dialogue (Edwards & Knight, 1994). The intricacies of interactions between teaching, learning, and curriculum will be elaborated later in a discussion of a Neo-Vygotskian framework for initial teacher education. To return at this point to a consideration of the impact that an emphasis on the assessment of competent performance might have on the processes of initial teacher training, Gal'Perin's work is one reminder of the complexity of the processes that lead to successful "performativity".

Reflective practice. Despite the ubiquity of the aim to create the reflective practitioner in teacher training programmes there is a dearth of evidence to suggest that, in the U.K. at least, reflection on practice in initial teacher education is an opportunity to connect any form of pedagogical theory with practice (McIntyre, 1993). Tann (1993) in her examination of the processes of reflection amongst trainee teachers concludes trainees need "a language with which they can share their personal experience and learn from others" public experiences (p. 68). Tann's evidence may be an outcome of what McIntyre described as a preoccupation with theorising as an alternative to accessing and working with testable propositions. McIntyre (1993) distinguishes between the theoretical base from which North American student teachers develop as reflective practitioners and the atheoretical background of much of practice. Mackinnon and Erickson (1992), writing in British Columbia, may be able to take more for granted than British trainers when they argue for taking a developmental perspective when creating reflective practitioners stating that a teacher education programme should provide a forum for "nurturing particuta~ dispositions

for inquiry, ways of seeing, critiquing and acting in classrooms". It is, however, the nurturing process that needs to be unpacked if it is to produce teachers who are not effective operators of a powerful pedagogic discourse and not unsupported risk-avoiders who do not take full advantage of the learning opportunities constantly available to them in their practice. A useful contribution to the ways in which reflective practice may be incorporated into a developmental view of teacher education which values public knowledge has been provided by Griffiths and Tann (1992). They offer a categorization of ways of reflecting in and on classroom events. Although they describe these forms of reflection as levels, it would appear that they do not see them as a hierarchy but as possible ways of reflecting. Even the most reflective of practitioners may need to engage with novel phenomena at a relatively exploratory level.of reflection, similarly expert practitioners are constantly reflecting in action as they make mundane decisions as part of their practice. Griffiths and Tann describe their first two levels as reflection in action. These levels consist firstly of the rapid reaction mechanism of act and react and then the process of reflection in action for repair purposes. The remaining three levels are categorized as reflection on action for the purposes of firstly practical review; then for research, in which understandings from elsewhere are consciously tested; and finally for retheorizing and reformulating. The final two levels of research and reformulation appear to represent action research and quite clearly access public knowledge. The three levels of reflection on action demonstrate an ability to engage with and even challenge public understandings of practice. This capacity is not exercised in isolation but in situations where opportunities for dialogue, discussion, and debate are possible. While Griffiths and Tann argue that reflective practitioners may operate effectively at all five levels when addressing the same event, it is tempting to see the skill building or developmental potential in the practice they present and the challenge they present the designers of programmes for initial teacher training. Consequently, it may be useful to examine a model of teacher education which attempts to integrate an emphasis on a developmental notion of initial training with competent performance and reflec-

Teacher Education: Partnerships in Pedagogy? tion and to build upon the centrality of the management of dialogues which lead to acquisition of forms of public knowledge that are open to scrutiny.

Partnership in Pedagogy One starting point for a partnership in initial teacher training which has student learning process at its central concern might then be the acknowledgement of at least two discourses operating in the two settings used for teacher education. One, powerful and context free, is exercised primarily by teacher educators and researchers and the other, situationally constrained, mainly by classroom teachers. This is not so much a theory practice divide as a language difference. It has, however, the potential to create a divide as teachers unfamiliar with the more powerful public discourse are likely to feel alienated by it and unwilling to test and develop the theories carried by it in their own practices. The language difference in teacher education is a problem which is likely to be magnified if it is not addressed when responsibilities are assigned to partners in teacher education. Rogoff, Gauvain, and Ellis (1984), among others, argue that learners are assisted by those who create bridges between contexts, draw analogies, and channel their learning. In teacher training, this assistance currently mainly involves HEI tutors in guiding a wider sharing of meanings between both school and college. This linguistic analysis finds support from Carter (1990) in her conclusion that "the learning-to-teach problem," is a matter of "translating knowledge from one form to another". Any pedagogically driven notion of partnership in the training of teachers consequently needs at least to attend to the extent to which developing expertise consists of acquiring the related language. Vygotsky and his later interpreters, who included Gal'Perin, provided a frarnework for teaching and learning which is evident, if only often implicitly, in the classroom practice of successful teachers as they induct learners into current understandings. The framework is offered here because it allows an exploration of the contributions to be made by training partners in the preparation of teachers. In his examination of teaching and learning Vygotsky started with the premise that learning


occurs on two "planes" (Vygotsky, 1978). The first is the intermental or social plane on which the learner is made familiar with language, ideas, and skills and the second is the intramental or personal plane at which the learner internalizes, makes sense of and starts to use new language, ideas, and skills as a precursor to scrutinied Impetent performance in the public arena. In Gal'Perin's work briefly outlined in Figure 1, stage 1 and sometimes elements of stage 2 fall into the social, public, expert-led intermental plane. Stage 2, if the practical steps receive little support, stages 3, 4, and frequently stage 5 constitute private or semi-private intramental place activities in which personal learning is the prime concern. Stage 5 events may move the actor on and again into the intermental plane as she or he informs current ways of seeing and understanding through fresh interpretations and connections. In the practice of early years teachers in schools, for exarnple, work in the intermental plan may be seen in a large group or whole class session in which children are introduced to key concepts and associated language through, for example, the examination of an artefact. When this activity is followed by small group work which allows further exploration and language use with careful teacher monitoring children are able to move into the intramental plane and begin to make sense for themselves. As pupils start to incorporate their new understandings into existing cognitive schemata and become more confident with their use, teachers may set more open-ended demanding tasks or may devise tasks which simply ensure new understandings are eaily incorporated into children's action repertoires. Learners may leave the intramental or personal plane and enter the intermental plane when confident and competent they can, through their own interpretations and actions, inform and engage as experts in the public discourse that operates at the social level. The teachers' role is complex and demands understandings of the entire cycle of learning so that support through both task adjustment and dialogue can be provided when needed by the learners (Edwards, 1994). The complexity is derived from the need to hold together understandings of teaching, learning and curriculum goals in interactions with learners. In Figure 2 this framework is applied to the initial training of teachers. The model offered is





(i) Actively contributing to the (i) collective experience





Listening to language in use



(',i) Using language to explain and

Immersion in the social/collective experience


(ii) Connecting own practice to (m) Making easier connections to wider political and ethical issues

previous knowledge. Possibility of miseonstmctions

and analysing (iv) personal against public theories

Expert knowledge available as resources or flames

Informed reflections, greater self awareness and motivation to move on. Retheorising and reformulating

Tightly focused reflecting often on surface issues. Frequently unarticulated. Reflection in action

Greater confidence in own goal (i) setting and selection of pathways

A narrow path taken through experiences which are highlighted by experts

(u) Using language to extrapolate (ii)

Testing own understanding of language in action


(iv) Comparing I


(i) P I







and hypothesise

(~) Evaluating own success against (~i) Testing own understanding of understood goals






new knowledge in actiOn

(iv) Beginning

Expert on hand for contingent dialogues in which joint meanings are dadfied

(v) Researcherly

Guided reflections on actions as part of dialogues

to assert own (iv) expertise as dialogues become more evenly balanced self reflections (v) feeding into dialogues



Figure 2. Linkingreflectionto learning.

an adaptation of HarrY's (1983) Vygotskian analysis of identity construction. Vygostskian intermental and intramental planes provide the basic framework. The path taken by the learners

moves through Quadrants A, B, C, and D in turn, with the opportunity for backtracking when necessary. Quadrant A is placed on the intermental or social plane where ideas and

Teacher Education: Partnerships in Pedagogy? procedures are first encountered. Quadrants B and C are situated on the intramental or personal plane and are where personal meanings are made. Quadrant D is alongside A on the social plane and is where individuals make their own contributions to their social worlds. The model maps learning as a shifting of understanding from half understood procedures and observations, through processes of clarification and reconstruction to effective performance. The processes of clarification at quadrants B and C are essential if deep, as opposed to surface, learning is to occur and the role of expert as task setter and contingent supporter is of central importance at these points. Dialogues with more expert practitioners, whether university tutors or teacher mentors, and consequent language acquisition and use are key features in this model. But the dialogues at each stage or quadrant have a different purpose and take a different form. Some analogies with the early language acquisition of children may be made (Bruner, 1983; Trevarthen, 1974). Initial conversations between experts and novices are shaped by experts who use the discourse of expert practitioners. Gradually the conversational balance shifts as, more confident in their language use and understandings and inforrned by experience and reflection on that practical experience, the learners start to take control of the interchanges until at quadrant D they are able to assert publicly their own claims to knowledge. Manning and Payne (1993) have already argued from a Vygotskian perspective that one aim of teaching beginning teachers is to enable them to self monitor. The shifting nature of these teaching and learning dialogues requires the informed management of student self-monitoring and consequent learning by both university tutors and teacher mentors. This model of the education of novice teachers emanates from a view of learning supported by research in U.K. developmental psychology (Newson, 1974; Wood, 1986)which sees the role of the expert or teacher as one that moves from acting "as if" the novice or teacher can engage as a full participant in dialogues, through a careful scaffolding of experience to ensure learner success and on towards an expectation of learner mastery and independent action. Sch6n's (1987) view of the developing dialogue between coach and student can, in part, be matched to the


process just outlined. He notes the difficulty of initial professional conversations between coach and student and the power of later ones as they eventually share a shorthand of gesture and elliptical speech, the growth of reciprocity in the conversation, diagnosis by the expert,and the continuous testing of meaning by the learner. The key to learner empowerment in these conversations lies in a learner's growing experience of the topics under discussion which is gained in schools and classrooms and is perhaps most clearly identified in the terms provided by Griffiths and Tann (1992) at point (v) in each quadrant. This emphasis on the constant "zigzag" of action and discussion between learning situations and reflective explication and the growing sophistication of a student's ability to represent consequent understandings of the situation finds support in current reforrnulations of cognitive development. Karmiloff-Smith (1992) demonstrates the importance of mastery at three distinct phases of individual sense-making which may be matched to the sequence outlined in Figure 2. At the same time she provides a developmental progression of ways of representing that knowledge which start from being narrow and contextspecific and evolve through experience, into more flexible ways of representing knowledge which are essentially context-free. The novelty of her argument lies in the challenge she presents to a Piagetian view of learning which sees learning as dependent on dissonance. In KarmiloffSmith's framework the value of constant and even repetitious experience is highlighted alongside opportunities for developing ways of representing what we have learnt to ourselves and to others. Conversations which allow the development of ways of both making sense and of representing that understanding appear essential to both movement through the phases and to a growth in understanding within each phase. Conseqently, much is demanded of mentor or tutor-expert as manager of student learning through structuring learning situations and managing dialogues. The UK government's guidelines for the preparation of secondary school teachers outlined earlier appear to indicate that the experiences presented in quadrants A, B and C in Figure 2 should fall within the responsibility of schools while much of what is



listed in quadrant D would come within the remit of the higher education base. The guidelines for primary school initial teacher training seem to imply a similar division of labour but appear to place less emphasis on quadrant A activities unless it is assumed that these are subsumed under the words "develop ... practical teaching skills" It would appear that the centrally provided definitions might be an oversimplification of a process that needs to create coherent and well-scaffolded opportunities for students' learning. Such a process needs to allow students to translate meanings and interconnect propositional and procedural knowledge to slide back from, for example, quadrant B to quadrant A when necessary, and to receive informed and contingent feedback in conversations with both teacher mentors and university tutors. It would seem that an accountability-driven over-emphasis on the end product or practical competence may have diverted attention away from the start-up processes essential to the Neo-Vygotskian model of initial teacher training presented here. The complexity of the framework for teacher training just discussed may well prevent a lead role for schools in training partnerships, but it may result in a more profoundly interdependent partnership as a context for the preparation of teachers. Both sets of expert supporters need to provide informed and helpful feedback to students at the point when it is required. Here again managerial notions of independent mastery and autonomous leadership are counterposed against pedagogical ideas of collaboration, developmental and i'esponsive dialogues, and appropriate contexts for different stages in an individual's cycle of learning. Three closely linked themes have run through the examination of initial teacher training so far. These themes are: (a) the definition of roles and responsibilities in training partnerships; (b) the learning cycle of students from induction to competence; and (c) the importance and management of learning conversations. Each theme will now be explored in turn through the examination of case study data. The framework provided in Figure 2 will be used to map student learning and the support they receive as a "zigzag" course is taken between illustrative data and ways of understanding partnerships.

An Illustrative Case Study As compelling as the interdependent pedagogic model of partnership may be to those who are more concerned about the management of learning than the managing of learners it is necessary to examine its feasibility and its implications for schools and HEIs. To' that end, data drawn from an examination of a school-HEI early years teaching pilot training partnership will be used to begin to explore the appropriateness and feasibility of both the managerial and more pedagogical interpretations of partnership. The key feature of managerial partnerships in initial training appears to be discrete responsibilities for trainers in the two training contexts. Conversely, a partnership which has a psychologically framed pedagogy at its centre demands a considerable degree of collaboration between partners and an interchangeability of roles to ensure that students receive the support and challenge they require at any point in their individual cycles of learning. The data that will illustrate the discussion are derived from an examination of the first year of a pilot 3-year accelerated degree programme for intending early years teachers. The partnership is between one HEI and eight schools and is essentially pedagogical in intention but incorporates distinct roles in its structure. In this example of partnership a series of teaching practice placements and subject-focused school attachments is planned and evaluated wifh collaborating schools. Distinct roles and responsibilities are defined for both sets of partners. But there is the implicit expectation that both schooland HEI-based staff will give the students the support they need to understand and develop their practice as and when they require it. Student support is therefore to be contingent upon perceived student need. Consequently there is, potentially at least, the opportunity for considerable overlap between the roles of university tutors and school teachers. Using funds received from the HEI, each school appoints an associate tutor who becomes one of the links between school and HEI. The other connection is the team of college link tutors who each have responsibility for students in one of the collaborating schools. The 42 students are placed in schools in groups ranging in size from 6 to 12 students and were each placed in two

Teacher Education: Partnerships in Pedagogy? schools over the period of the study. The class teachers involved are expected to give students support as they work in pairs in their classrooms. Associate tutors are expected to organize appropriate curriculum experiences for students and to conduct seminars in school for the students placed in their schools. The associate tutors receive programme-related training at the HEI. The data were gathered over a 12-month period which comprised the first year of the degree programme. Data collection methods included interviews, formal observations of classroom practice, taped conversations between students and class teachers, and questionnaires. Two researchers were involved in the interviews and observations. Analysis has involved a third researcher for reliability testing. The main aim of this phase of data collection was to discover what was actually happening when student teachers were in schools so that more specific research questions could be identified and examined with a subsequent cohort. Elements of these data will be examined in order to explore how a partnership which has pedagogic intentions enacts them within a managerially based framework of clearly defined roles and responsibilities. The impact of managerial requirements will be observed and implications for the development of pedagogical partnerships examined. The case study data will be examined through an exploration of the three themes that ran through the analyses which informed the framework for a pedagogical model of teacher preparation offered earlier in this paper.

Roles and responsibilities. Clearly there is a need to recognise that this is an embryonic partnership so, to use the learning framework adopted earlier in this paper, it is appropriate to acknowledge that novice partners need to be scaffolded as they are inducted into independent performance in new roles. Nevertheless, information gathered by questionnaire at the end of the first 12 months would suggest that among these primary school teachers an increased interdependent relationship with the university rather than independent responsibility was required. The school-based partners shared a consistent view of their role in the training of student teachers. Support and guidance in the classroom was the superordinate theme in these data. This


theme was underpinned by what teachers saw as their ability to provide opportunities for trying out ideas in classrooms full of "real children". Learning by doing was clearly an important element, as was an emphasis on a non-critical atmosphere and constructive comment on achievement. Collison and Edwards (1994), in a detailed study of the role descriptions of these teachers gathered in interviews and questionnaires, categorized them in their own terms as either predominantly carers or guides. In their own descriptions of their roles the teachers appeared to be operating in quadrant B and at times in quadrant C of Figure 2. Quadrant A activities were of course evident in schools as student teachers were "put in real-life situations" but there was also a strong expectation that much of quadrant A work would originate in the HEI as it is there, according to the teachers, that students should receive ideas and "theory" (frameworks). Final assessments of competence and understanding were felt to be the preserve of the HEI "They are after all ultimately responsible for the degree and its validation". It was also recognised that the link tutors had a role in sustaining the opportunities for "trying out" and "making sense" that were occurring in schools and found in quadrants B and C. The teachers also felt that the highlighting of what should be observed and reflected upon that occurred in quadrant A should be given coherence and closer linkage to school-based quadrant B and C activities by a clear and shared but college-led programme. Interviews with teachers in the early months of the programme indicated their need to be clear about "what the students should experience" The students too felt they needed more time in college early on to clarify their own frameworks of understanding. It would seem therefore that the teachers were acting out their role in a clear but relatively limited way. They did not engage in "unravelling" theory from practice but expected students to have received from the HEI at least some tentative frameworks with which to explore practice in schools. Student responses confirmed this as they too looked to the HEI for a highlighting and framing of their classroom experiences. While at first sight these data might present an argument for distinct roles and responsibili-



ties it is evident that these teachers saw that they had a part to play in a coherent but complex cycle of student learning and that partnership should, as a consequence, be of an integrative collaborative form rather than one which is based on independent responsibility for distinct elements. The majority felt unable to deal with what they termed "theory" but felt it was important and should be related to practice. Some, as we shall see, tried hard to provide the theoretical frameworks. Others, as shall be revealed later, colluded with students in bidding down the demand of the tasks that students were carrying out in classrooms in order to avoid taking action that might better be placed in quadrant C than in quadrant B.

The learning cycle of student teachers. Initial framing of pedagogical elements of the course was provided by HEI tutors in, for example, the subjects that comprise the primary school curriculum and general educational topics which included race and special educational needs. The programme was designed so that once the initial highlighting and introductory sessions had occurred student teachers could develop their practice at their own pace and make the most of the opportunities available to them in schools. Such a student-centred approach meant that both school and HEI-based trainers were to be responsive to student teachers' learning needs as and when students required support. Yet the use of discrete roles and responsibilities as a framework for action had the potential to militate against this aim. Interview and questionnaire data from the student teachers after 3 and 6 months of the programme indeed indicated that this contingent responsiveness was an ambitious expectation. Data gathered 3 months into the programme on the sources of support for students ranks the class teacher as fifth of the five sources available. Associate tutors and other students are ranked first and second. The link tutor is third and home study packs are fourth. The associate tutors were receiving courserelated training and had been directly involved with college staff in planning the programme. Consequently, they were in touch with the course aims and the planned sequence of student teacher learning. The class teachers, on the other hand, saw themselves as providers of safe learning

environments in which students could learn without making too many public mistakes. The class teachers felt that their pupils were their first priority and that the children should be safe-guarded from student teacher error. Students consequently were strongly scaffolded by their class teachers. Analysis of five hours of tape recordings of 21 meetings between teachers and pairs of students reveal that 50% of teachers' talk to students is the transmission of facts and related directly to the practicalities of task setting (Collison & Edwards, 1994). It has been argued (Collison & Edwards, 1994) that teachers and students appeared to be colluding in what Doyle (1986) has described as a process of bidding down task demand. It seems that the teachers did so because of their lack of confidence in what they described as the theoretical aspects of pedagogy which they felt to be the preserve of the HEI. The associate tutors on the other hand were able to respond, to an extent, to student teachers' more general learning needs and particularly to see student teacher learning as a long-term progression towards expertise. The learning cycle that underpinned the partnership demanded that associate tutors, link tutors, and class teachers were all able to provide feedback to students that met their learning needs. In other words that they would be able to cope not only with questions that might be derived from the contexts for which they were responsible, for example the needs of specific children, but also with those that might appear to the responsibility of other partners. In the case of class teachers, an example of another partner's responsibilities might be general principles related to children's learning. It was recognised that students who are learning at their own pace might move rapidly in some areas of pedagogy to the extent that they would welcome challenge and questioning of their assumptions when planning classroom tasks while in other areas they might move cautiously and need to revise and revisit earlier experiences and ideas. Karmiloff-Smith's work on domain-specific learning would confirm that this is likely to occur (Karmiloff-Smith, 1992). Therefore, a teacher who might feel that his or her responsibility lies in quadrant B of Figure 2 may in fact find that he or she is required to cope with quadrant A, C, and D demands made by students.

Teacher Education: Partnerships in Pedagogy? Most class teachers declared themselves unwilling to do this though it appears that some of the associate tutors were satisfying student need for support. Interview data with headteachers confirms that the associate tutors were undergoing considerable professional development as a result of their involvement in the programme and link tutor interviews indicate that HEI staff'felt that the school-based associate tutors were "speaking our language". These data suggest that teachers are able to provide students with the contingent support they require in each phase of their cycle of learning. But that in order to do so teachers have to shift their priorities to incorporate student teacher learning needs and become familiar with the more powerful context-free discourse which allows them to discuss general principles in addition to the specifics of their own classrooms. The class teachers gave clear messages that they were unwilling to make these shifts if their own classroom pupils' learning was at risk.

Learning conversations. The Neo-Vygotskian cycle of learning outlined in Figure 2 places considerable emphasis on the part that language plays in carrying the conceptual structure of a body of knowledge. Language is central to three of the five development points found in each quadrant. The learner moves from immersion in a language bath in quadrant A to the beginnings of language use in B to more confident usage in C and assertive use in D. Language development is structured and supported in dialogues between expert and novice. Control of these dialogues shift as the learner is increasingly able to set and inform the agenda by drawing on his or her practical experiences. Following the points raised in the discussion of the student learning cycle it would appear that both sets of training partners should be able to provide students with the opportunities for dialogues which range from relatively tight expert control to relatively loose expert control as the learner becomes more informed and confident. In Figure 2 the conversations associated with developing reflective practitioners are linked to the more general language experiences of students to the extent that expert-novice conversations may be structured to develop simultaneously both language in use and an understanding of practice and context. Data however suggest


that this aspect of the student teachers' pedagogical cycle proved most diffficult to effect. Observational data gathered in classrooms confirms a lack of contingent dialogue with class teachers reported by students in interview and questionnaire. In 12 hours and 30 minutes of blocks of 10-minute-minute-by minute continuous observations, only six of the minute segments reveal any interaction between students and class teachers while the students worked in classrooms. None of these could be described as contingent on student or pupil behaviour, but were instead related to mundane school management issues. Given the questionnaire data already discussed on the relative lack of interaction preand post-teaching sessions it would appear that some student teachers certainly were simply learning by doing and that the scaffolding language support necessary for the development of more public expertise was simply not available~. Interview data from students indicated that they valued being left alone and felt undermined when teachers did intervene. Primary practice based on group work would also seem to militate against contingent scaffolding or structured teacher mentor support. Planning conversations revealed a tendency for teachers to take responsibility for some groups of children while the student teachers worked with others. This practice also meant that students and teachers were unable to observe the same events and use their observations as the basis of later conversations. In addition it meant that conversations that might involve contingent feedback did not take place while the students were actually working with children. The amount of direct pedagogical guidance through guided reflection is difficult to identify. Data from the experiences of 20 students who taped planning and evaluation sessions with 11 teachers over an 8-month period give some indication of what the schools were doing well and where the gaps existed (Collison & Edwards, 1994). The major element in these conversations consisted of practical tips (50% of all teacher units of talk). Twenty-one per cent of units of teacher talk were redundant clarification, for example, "it is in the cupboard". Under 2% were directly related to pupil learning. The concerti that pedagogy may be lost in a heavily schoolbased training received some confirmation. It



was in fact intensified by an analysis of the content of learning-related discussion (Edwards & Collison, 1993). The following is representative of conversations containing elements relating to learning. No, if they've got a line underneath they can copy that as well,if they can't read it you can keep reading it over to them and they have literally copied it underneath, which will help them, erm, you know help it go in their memoriesa bit more. (classteacher) This is not meant to deride a teacher's attempt to take the thinking of the students on beyond simple task-setting. She has seen that to do so is an important part of her role. It is simply given to exemplify both the Complexity of the translation process if expertise is to be shared and the need for sharing to occur in ways that assist students in acquiring the use of a language which will allow extrapolation beyond the immediacies of setting out tasks to occupy pupils. It may also do more by suggesting that although the more powerful expert discourse is not always part of the immediately available repertoire of teachers as they work in classrooms (Anning, 1988) some teachers are discovering the need to acquire it. Teacher-student conversations were also examined for what has been described in Figure 2 quadrant B as guided reflections on actions as part of dialogue. This category of talk comprised any attempt by teachers to push students into thinking for themselves. It was evident in approximately 7% of units of teacher talk. The embeddedness of teacher reflection in action and its demonstration as intelligent action in context (Anning, 1988; Sch6n, 1983, 1987) means that the relative dearth of reflection on action is unsurprising. But again there is evidence that for at least some teachers it was seen as a part of their role. Conclusion The case study data indicate that pedagogical partnerships are difficult to achieve with even the best of intentions. Partnerships of this kind require both sets of partners to be able to cope with student learning needs as students move back and forth in their individual progress through a cycle of learning. Pedagogical partnerships may, therefore, demand even greater collaboration and opportunities for role overlap and mutual learning than is perhaps evident in current U.K. plans

for partnerships. Fullan's 1993 suggestion that U.S. Professional Development Schools interpret their new function as yet another project would give wider support to this claim. Managerially based models of partnership with their emphasis on discrete roles and responsibilities appear to advocate a system of support for student learning which would restrict opportunities for students to receive appropriate support contingent to their needs as they advance and regress in their own cycles of learning. It appears, however, that the Neo-Vygotskian framework provided in Figure 2 has the potential to guide teacher educators as they help students both to translate their own experiences and understandings into the complexities of pedagogical knowledge and to acquire the more powerful language frameworks offered by an understanding of a pedagogy that incorporates understandings of teaching, learning, and curricular goals. The ideas summarized in Figure 2 therefore provide a framework for a collaborative partnership which is as complex as the learning processes of the individuals involved. Such a partnership won't be cheap. It offers none of the simple accountability attractions of clear role definitions and responsibilities. It is not easily enacted. Furthermore, it requires that the learning of the partners involved in student training be as demanding as that required of the students. Despite the difficulties observed, the case study data presented here suggest that there is reason to believe that col.laborative educational partnerships based on a common understanding of student learning in context are not impossible to achieve, at least in part, and may be worth the effort required to ensure that they are achieved in full. Indeed that effort may itself enhance more than the competent performance of the students in training by also impacting on the development of schools and HEIs (Edwards & Collison, in press). The staff development implications of creating an initial training curriculum in which theory is both tested and grounded in practice has considerable implications the most exciting of which is the notion of teacher professional development as a continuum through which all the professionals involved work as partners in the testing and development of educational theory and the development of educational practice wherever it is enacted.

Teacher Education: Partnersh!ps in Pedagogy?

A seamless pedagogically driven partnership in which role overlap is a central feature does not imply incoherence and lack of direction. Conversely, it rests on clarity of goals; attention to learner needs; a sound understanding of what might be a best bet framework for supporting the induction of novices into expertise; and the professional development of teacher educators wherever they may be based.

References Anning, A. (1988). Teachers' theories about children's learning. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Teachers'proJessional learning (pp. 128 145). London: Falmer. Ball, S. J. (1994). Education reform. Buckingham: Open University Press. Bennett, N., & CarrY, C. (Eds.) (1993). Learning to teach. London: Routledge. Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Bruner, J. S. (1966). Towards a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Bruner, J. S. (1983). Child's talk: Learning to use language. Oxford: Oxford Universtiy Press. Carter, K. ~1990). Teachers' knowledge and learning to teach. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 291-310). London: Macmillan. CATE (Council for the Accreditation of Teaching Education). (1992). The accreditation of initial teacher training under circulars 9/92 and 35/92: A note of guidance from the council for the accreditation of teacher education. London: CATE. Clandanin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1986). Rhythms in teaching: The narrative study of teacher' personal practical knowledge of classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education 2, 377 387. Collinson, J., & Edwards, A. (1994). How teachers support children's learning. In I. Reid et al. (Eds.), Teacher education reform." Current rese~trch (pp. 131-136). London: Paul Chapman. DFE. (1993). The initial training of primary school teachers: Circular 14193 (England). London: DFE. Doyle, W. (1986). Classroom organisation and management. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.) Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan. Edwards, A. (1994). The curricular applications of classroom groups. In P. Kutnick & C. Rogers (Eds.), Groups in schools (pp. 177-194). London: Cassell. Edwards, A., & Brunton, D. (1993). Supporting reflection in teachers' learning. In J. Calderhead & P. Gates (Eds.), Conceptualizing reflection in teacher development (pp. 154 166). London: Falmer. Edwards, A., & Collison, J. (1993). School-based teacher training: Evidence from the classroom. Paper presented to the British Psychological Society, Education Section Conference, Wokingham. Edwards, A., & Knight, P. (1994). Effective early years education. Buckingham: Open University Press.


Edwards, A., & Knight, P. (Eds). (1995). Assessing competence in higher education. London: Kogan Page. Elbaz, F. (1990). Knowledge and discourse: The evolution of research on teacher thinking. In C. Day, M. Pope, & P. Denicolo (Eds.), Insight into teachers' thinking and practice (pp. 15 42). London: Falmer. Fullafi, M. (1993). Change forces. London: Falmer. Furlong, V. J., Hirst P. H, Pocklington, K., & Miles, S. (1988). Initial teacher training and role of the school. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Gal'Perin, P. (1970). An experimental study in the formation of mental actions. In E. Stones (Ed.), Readings in educationalpsychology (pp. 142-154). London: Methuen. Goodlad, J. (1991). Teachers for our nation's schools. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Griliiths, M., & Tann, S. (1992). Using reflective practice to link personal and public theories. Journal of Education for Teaching, 18(1), 69 84. Harr6, R. (1983). Personal being. Oxford: Blackwell. Jessup, G. (1991). Outcomes: NVQs and the emerging model of education and training. London: Falmer. Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1992). Beyond modularity. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Mackinson, A., & Erickson, G. (1992). The roles of reflective practice and foundational disciplines in teacher education. In T. Russell & Munby (Eds.), Teachers and teaching: From classroom to reflection (pp. 192-210). London: Falmer. Manning, B. H., & Payne, B. D. (1993). A Vygotskian-based theory of teacher cognition: Towards the acquisition of metal reflection and self regulation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 9, 361 371. Mclntyre, D. (1993). Theory, theorizing and reflection in initial teacher education. In J. Calderhead & P. Gates (Eds.), Conceptualizing reflection in teacher development (pp. 39 52). London: Falmer. Newson, J. (1974). Towards a theory of infant understanding. Bulletin/or the British P~3,chological Society, 27, 251 257. Rapport, N. (1994). The prose and the passion. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Rogoff, B., Gauvain, M., & Ellis, S. (1984). Development viewed in its cultural context. In M. Bornstein & M. Lamb (Eds.), Developmental psycology: An advanced textbook (pp. 533-571). Hilldale: LEA. Sch6n, D. A. (1983). The reflective practioner. New York: Basic Books. Sch6n, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1 22. Smith, R., & Aired, G. (1993). The impersonation of wisdom. In D. Mclntyre, H. Hagger, & M. Wilkin (Eds.), Mentory (pp. 103-116). London: Kogan Page. Stallings, J. A., & Kowalski, T. (1990). Research on professional development schools. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 251-263). New York: Macmillan. Stones, E. (1992). Quality teaching: A sample of cases. London: Routledge. Tann, S. (1993). Eliciting student teachers' personal theories. In J. Calderhead & P. Gates (Eds.), Conceptualizing reflection in teacher development (pp. 53-69). London: Falmer.



Tharp, R., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning and schooling in social context. New York: Cambridge University Press. Trevarthen, C. (1974). Conversations with a one-month-old. New Scientist, 62, 230-235. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mindin society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Wertsch, J. V. (Ed.) (1985). Culture communication and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wood, D. (1986). Aspects of teaching and learning. In M. Richards & P. Light (Eds.), Children of social worlds (pp. 191-212). Cambridge: Polity Press.

Submitted 12 January 1994 Accepted 2 March 1995